2018 ethnographic weapon

A. G. Maisey · 30th July 2018, 11:13 PM

Gentlemen, Thomas may be producing modern interpretations of antique weaponry, but it is not able to be argued that simply because this work by Thomas is both modern, and an interpretation, it disqualifies the work from consideration as an ethnological artifact.

Ethnology is way of learning about the world from the perspective of social relationships. It can be involved in both sociology and anthropology, and can examine the diversity of our own culture and society, as well as the diversity of foreign cultures and societies, both in the present, and in the past.

I do agree that in this Forum most participants hold an interest in weaponry that is either foreign to their own culture, or weaponry that is antique, or both these things, but the elements of antiquity and foreignness are not necessary to define ethnology, quite the opposite in fact.

My personal opinion is that people like Thomas should be encouraged as contributors, not sent into oblivion, as only a maker can understand the intricacies of actually making something, and the knowledge of the maker is invaluable to any person who attempts to understand the things in which he has an interest.

David · 31st July 2018, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

My personal opinion is that people like Thomas should be encouraged as contributors, not sent into oblivion, as only a maker can understand the intricacies of actually making something, and the knowledge of the maker is invaluable to any person who attempts to understand the things in which he has an interest.

Alan, i don't believe anyone has even remotely suggested banishment to oblivion.

I've been a maker all my life. I'll have to upload some shots of the railroad spike knife and axe i forged. They don't have anywhere near the fine craft of Thomas' beautiful chopper here. But they do serve realtime ritual purpose and cultural significance.

Robert · 31st July 2018, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Gentlemen, Thomas may be producing modern interpretations of antique weaponry, but it is not able to be argued that simply because this work by Thomas is both modern, and an interpretation, it disqualifies the work from consideration as an ethnological artifact.

Ethnology is way of learning about the world from the perspective of social relationships. It can be involved in both sociology and anthropology, and can examine the diversity of our own culture and society, as well as the diversity of foreign cultures and societies, both in the present, and in the past.

I do agree that in this Forum most participants hold an interest in weaponry that is either foreign to their own culture, or weaponry that is antique, or both these things, but the elements of antiquity and foreignness are not necessary to define ethnology, quite the opposite in fact.

My personal opinion is that people like Thomas should be encouraged as contributors, not sent into oblivion, as only a maker can understand the intricacies of actually making something, and the knowledge of the maker is invaluable to any person who attempts to understand the things in which he has an interest.

Thank you for putting into words so precisely what I have been trying without success to do all day.

Best,
Robert

A. G. Maisey · 31st July 2018, 09:25 AM

Thank you for your reassurances David, and although much appreciated, I am certain they are unnecessary. Just as nobody in this thread has recommended that Thomas be banished, I also did not suggest that banishment was being considered by anybody, however if this current thread were to be moved from the Ethnographic Weapons Forum, into the Ethnographic Miscellanea Forum I do feel that such action could result in Thomas' contribution to our mutual interest being forgotten, and oblivion is the state of having been forgotten.

The fact that you, yourself, have had experience in the craft of metal working is itself evidence of the varied ethnicity of North American culture. When we involve ourselves in ethnographic studies, we are indulging in a very broad based discipline, and where weaponry is an element of that ethnographic study, it becomes extremely difficult to define a boundary.

Thomas' work is certainly not old, it is not replication of weaponry from an identifiable culture, but it is extremely difficult to argue that it does not fit into the parameters of ethnographic study.

fernando · 31st July 2018, 03:50 PM

Perhaps this is a case of perspectives, so that the strict acceptation of the Ethnography appears to refer the descriptive study of facts of civilization of the diverse peoples and ethnicities. Everything runs harmoniously on a tacit basis or consensus, until something apparently off scope runs into the club. Scope ... would be precisely the gauge that defines a frontier within which an implement fits into accepted discussion.
It is pertinent to say that Thomas piece doesn't fit in the Miscellania forum, but because its scope comprehending "ethnographic artifacts other than arms and armor" still raises one or another doubt in this case.
Would this be an European item, doubts would not arise, as the scope of such forum makes it clear that replicas or modern items are better dealt in more adequate venues.
So reputing any individual modern creation, providing that it has a blade, as an ethnographic weapon, may be taken by some as a rather subjective interpretation; one that can be validated or rejected by the respective forum moderators, of course. This not meaning that eventual opinions that this is not an ethnographic artifact are not valid, hence risking the whipping post.
And of course this is not about to encourage or discourage those who create whatever they intend; is more about something being or not in the adequate territory.
Mind you, all just impressions of an ignaro

.

A. G. Maisey · 31st July 2018, 11:39 PM

Who can disagree with your thoughtful approach to this matter, Fernando?

Not I, that is certain.

However, that said , I do have a couple comments.

This Forum is designated as a "General forum for discussion of all ethnographic edged weapons and related topics".

The ethnographic method of cultural investigation can be thought of as an empirical hands-on approach, as distinct from the purely theoretical method that under-pins both sociology and anthropology, in fact in the purest form of ethnographic examination of a culture the researcher enters the culture and becomes a part of it. I adopted this approach to the investigation of my own special field of study more than 30 years ago, after I found that the existing literature provided neither adequate, nor accurate information in respect of my needs.

In the matter under discussion we seem to considering at least three elements. Firstly we have a craftsman working in Europe, we then have the craftsman working in a form that takes inspiration from Asia, and finally we have that craftsman using current era technology in a craft that has existed in both Europe and Asia for in excess of 2000 years.

Considered objectively we can now understand that in the work of Thomas Hauschild we are seeing the interaction of one or more Asian cultures/societies on the thought processes of a European craftsman working in the current era, and providing an interpretation of Asian material culture by use of technology and techniques that are embedded in a sub-culture that is common to both Europe and Asia.

The ethnographic method of enquiry investigates cultural norms and variations in a culture, ideally, in a living culture, but the historical approach can also be adopted where this is necessary.

In my opinion, Thomas Hauschild and his work do provide a superb example of the interaction of cultural influence across time.

Ethnographic enquiry is about understanding cultures and societies in order to better understand the anthropology and sociology of those cultures and societies. It is an inclusive method, not an exclusive method.

In consideration of Thomas' we work have material that permits not only the obvious possibility of analysis of the physical object that Thomas produced, but a moment's thought will surely illuminate the multiple probabilities in the past where ideas from one society/culture penetrated an alien society/culture and sometimes gave rise to variation within that receiving society/culture. Much of this variation has concerned weaponry.

To my mind, this is ethnology at its core, and my understanding is that this Forum exists for the purpose of discussion of weaponry and related topics from an ethnographic perspective.

The lessons to be learned from Thomas' work go far beyond the object he has presented.

kronckew · 1st August 2018, 08:29 AM

I agree with A.G. Ethnographic edged arms is not just a dead art over 100 yrs. old. they are alive and well and in use and in production by small smiths all over the world, using a variety of traditional and modern techniques.

Mass produced replica knockoffs may not fit our forum, but there should be room for experimental archaeology that explains or perpetuates the technical construction and processes that produced our items of the past, for us and for the future, and this includes the current production of future antique artworks.

Knowing how things are made, assembled and used increases rather than decreases our knowledge of the past, as well as the present.

David · 1st August 2018, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

I agree with A.G. Ethnographic edged arms is not just a dead art over 100 yrs. old. they are alive and well and in use and in production by small smiths all over the world, using a variety of traditional and modern techniques.

Mass produced replica knockoffs may not fit our forum, but there should be room for experimental archaeology that explains or perpetuates the technical construction and processes that produced our items of the past, for us and for the future, and this includes the current production of future antique artworks.

Knowing how things are made, assembled and used increases rather than decreases our knowledge of the past, as well as the present.

noun: ethnography
the scientific description of the customs of individual peoples and cultures.

Well then, my questions would be, what ethnicity does Thomas' chopper reflect? How does this particular blade fit into the customs and practices of Thomas' specific people? How will this blade be used and cared for by the Thomasonian people? Were there special rites and rituals that went into it's construction? Do the Thomasonians ascribe any spiritual qualities to their blades or are they simply for practical purpose? If only for practical purpose how exactly is this blade used within the context of Thomasonian society? How and when are such blades carried and wielded? Is this a weapon or an agricultural tool?
No one was suggesting that ethnographic items need be antique. There is still a very active keris culture operating throughout parts of Indonesia where keris are made as a part of cultural expression. Though perhaps lessened, keris still serve a cultural function within those societies. As well made and beautiful as Thomas' blade is, and despite the obvious cultural influences that he drew from in its creation, it still seems more an artifact of personal expression than a cultural one to me.
So, do we now open the Ethno Forum to every maker amongst our membership who wants to show their latest forged creation? There are certainly many other forums out there that specifically discuss the works of modern blade smiths. Should we open a separate sub-group on our site for such discussion?

fernando · 1st August 2018, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Who can disagree with your thoughtful approach to this matter, Fernando?
Not I, that is certain.
However, that said , I do have a couple comments...

Fair enough, A.G.; and thank you for caring to respond to my simplistic approach to the subject. Still my argumentative abilities are manifestly inferior to those of the author of such excellent piece of rhetoric.
Yet is time i retire from this conversation, as having already expressed my point of view ... one that prevails, by the way.

Yours humbly !

Rick · 1st August 2018, 11:25 PM

A Smith's sub-forum wherein the artisan(s) only can show ethnographically inspired contemporary work for comments?

Or is this a...
Lead balloon?

A. G. Maisey · 2nd August 2018, 12:16 AM

I agree with you David, that it is nearly always a very good idea to try to fix the precise meaning of any word before relying on that word to carry a message that is intended to be clearly understood. In fact, it has been my long-standing habit to check any word that I do not use in daily colloquial communication. Additionally, it pleases me greatly that you accessed an Oxford source.

However, the dictionary meaning of any word is only the beginning of an understanding.

For instance, we all know and use without hesitation the word "occupy". It is a word that was avoided in the 17th & 18th centuries, because in Shakespeare's time it could get you time in the stocks if you were heard using it in public, as it had some particularly vulgar connotations --- well, connotations deemed to be vulgar at that time, perhaps not quite so vulgar now.

The way in which words are used changes constantly, just as society itself changes constantly. The only time a language does not change is when it is dead, as is the case with Latin, which in a sense can be a useful quality in a language, as it certainly prevents misunderstanding, possibly one of the reasons why a medical practitioner in past times would use Latin to convey instructions for treatment.

So, the message is clear:- language that is unchanging is dead, and language being an indicator of health for a society, any society that fails to change can also be considered dead, and dead things simply disappear and sink into oblivion.

Another quality of language is that meanings can and do change, dependent upon context.

Although we can produce a dictionary definition of a word, indeed, in the case of "ethnography" we can produce a very large number of dictionary definitions, all of which are similar, but all of which could be debated upon the variations in their similarity. Thus, for an understanding of current usage of a word, we need to go a little beyond the limitations of a two line dictionary entry. Because of the changing nature of language, lexicographers are in a sense, historians:- they record the meaning of words in the past, not necessarily in the present. The dictionary is the place that we start when investigating correct and current understanding of a word, but it is not the place where we finish, in fact, in real life the true meaning of a two letter word could well find itself argued in front of the highest court in the land.

I would like to make this post as short as I reasonably can, so rather than write a multi-page presentation on the way in which the word "ethnography" can be understood, I will provide this link:-

http://www.americanethnography.com/ethnography.php

In David's dictionary definition of "ethnography" we can see that this word is defined as a "scientific description". I most humbly suggest that if we were to use this definition as the basis for a decision upon whether or not a particular subject presented for discussion in the Ethnographic Arms & Armour Forum was acceptable or not, we would very probably need to disallow the vast bulk of all threads and posts to every sub-forum.

Since this has not happened, and since it is clear that the dictionary meaning is known and understood, then it is very obvious that the strict dictionary meaning of "ethnology" is not at all relevant to the matters that have been, and that continue to be, discussed in this Forum.

Rather, what does seem to be relevant to an understanding of the word "ethnographic" is the way in which various academics who practice and teach ethnography understand the word. Those who care to investigate university course descriptions, and text books that deal with the subject will find that my comment in Post #23 is very close to a generalised understanding of the concept of "ethnographic", across the academic world.

In short, the ethnographic approach to understanding humanity, its cultures and societies is a hands-on method that amongst other things permits the examination of inter-societal exchange enabling a better focussed understanding of a society, its culture, and the people within it.

The work of Thomas Hauschild as presented in this thread exemplifies this academic context, and as such should be considered as a serious contribution to an understanding of cross-cultural exchange.

What we can see in Thomas' work is ethnographic examination in action.

Earlier in this post I commented on the way in which societies and languages that do not change eventually die. I feel it is reasonable to think of this Forum as a sort of sub-culture within a segment of society. Kronckew has suggested that perhaps the time is ripe for some changes to take place in the sub-culture that we inhabit. I do tend to agree with him. I am certain that the last thing that any of us wish to see is the death and disappearance of this Forum.

A review of Forum activity during past times, in comparison with Forum activity at present should convince anybody that we do need an increase in interest.

31st July 2018, 03:50 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Defending the dame ! Perhaps this is a case of perspectives, so that the strict acceptation of the Ethnography appears to refer the descriptive study of facts of civilization of the diverse peoples and ethnicities. Everything runs harmoniously on a tacit basis or consensus, until something apparently off scope runs into the club. Scope ... would be precisely the gauge that defines a frontier within which an implement fits into accepted discussion. It is pertinent to say that Thomas piece doesn't fit in the Miscellania forum, but because its scope comprehending "ethnographic artifacts other than arms and armor" still raises one or another doubt in this case. Would this be an European item, doubts would not arise, as the scope of such forum makes it clear that replicas or modern items are better dealt in more adequate venues. So reputing any individual modern creation, providing that it has a blade, as an ethnographic weapon, may be taken by some as a rather subjective interpretation; one that can be validated or rejected by the respective forum moderators, of course. This not meaning that eventual opinions that this is not an ethnographic artifact are not valid, hence risking the whipping post. And of course this is not about to encourage or discourage those who create whatever they intend; is more about something being or not in the adequate territory. Mind you, all just impressions of an ignaro .

1st August 2018, 11:25 PM	#10
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	How About? A Smith's sub-forum wherein the artisan(s) only can show ethnographically inspired contemporary work for comments? Or is this a... Lead balloon?

30th July 2018, 11:13 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Gentlemen, Thomas may be producing modern interpretations of antique weaponry, but it is not able to be argued that simply because this work by Thomas is both modern, and an interpretation, it disqualifies the work from consideration as an ethnological artifact. Ethnology is way of learning about the world from the perspective of social relationships. It can be involved in both sociology and anthropology, and can examine the diversity of our own culture and society, as well as the diversity of foreign cultures and societies, both in the present, and in the past. I do agree that in this Forum most participants hold an interest in weaponry that is either foreign to their own culture, or weaponry that is antique, or both these things, but the elements of antiquity and foreignness are not necessary to define ethnology, quite the opposite in fact. My personal opinion is that people like Thomas should be encouraged as contributors, not sent into oblivion, as only a maker can understand the intricacies of actually making something, and the knowledge of the maker is invaluable to any person who attempts to understand the things in which he has an interest.

31st July 2018, 09:25 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Thank you for your reassurances David, and although much appreciated, I am certain they are unnecessary. Just as nobody in this thread has recommended that Thomas be banished, I also did not suggest that banishment was being considered by anybody, however if this current thread were to be moved from the Ethnographic Weapons Forum, into the Ethnographic Miscellanea Forum I do feel that such action could result in Thomas' contribution to our mutual interest being forgotten, and oblivion is the state of having been forgotten. The fact that you, yourself, have had experience in the craft of metal working is itself evidence of the varied ethnicity of North American culture. When we involve ourselves in ethnographic studies, we are indulging in a very broad based discipline, and where weaponry is an element of that ethnographic study, it becomes extremely difficult to define a boundary. Thomas' work is certainly not old, it is not replication of weaponry from an identifiable culture, but it is extremely difficult to argue that it does not fit into the parameters of ethnographic study.

31st July 2018, 11:39 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Who can disagree with your thoughtful approach to this matter, Fernando? Not I, that is certain. However, that said , I do have a couple comments. This Forum is designated as a "General forum for discussion of all ethnographic edged weapons and related topics". The ethnographic method of cultural investigation can be thought of as an empirical hands-on approach, as distinct from the purely theoretical method that under-pins both sociology and anthropology, in fact in the purest form of ethnographic examination of a culture the researcher enters the culture and becomes a part of it. I adopted this approach to the investigation of my own special field of study more than 30 years ago, after I found that the existing literature provided neither adequate, nor accurate information in respect of my needs. In the matter under discussion we seem to considering at least three elements. Firstly we have a craftsman working in Europe, we then have the craftsman working in a form that takes inspiration from Asia, and finally we have that craftsman using current era technology in a craft that has existed in both Europe and Asia for in excess of 2000 years. Considered objectively we can now understand that in the work of Thomas Hauschild we are seeing the interaction of one or more Asian cultures/societies on the thought processes of a European craftsman working in the current era, and providing an interpretation of Asian material culture by use of technology and techniques that are embedded in a sub-culture that is common to both Europe and Asia. The ethnographic method of enquiry investigates cultural norms and variations in a culture, ideally, in a living culture, but the historical approach can also be adopted where this is necessary. In my opinion, Thomas Hauschild and his work do provide a superb example of the interaction of cultural influence across time. Ethnographic enquiry is about understanding cultures and societies in order to better understand the anthropology and sociology of those cultures and societies. It is an inclusive method, not an exclusive method. In consideration of Thomas' we work have material that permits not only the obvious possibility of analysis of the physical object that Thomas produced, but a moment's thought will surely illuminate the multiple probabilities in the past where ideas from one society/culture penetrated an alien society/culture and sometimes gave rise to variation within that receiving society/culture. Much of this variation has concerned weaponry. To my mind, this is ethnology at its core, and my understanding is that this Forum exists for the purpose of discussion of weaponry and related topics from an ethnographic perspective. The lessons to be learned from Thomas' work go far beyond the object he has presented.

1st August 2018, 08:29 AM	#7
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,227	I agree with A.G. Ethnographic edged arms is not just a dead art over 100 yrs. old. they are alive and well and in use and in production by small smiths all over the world, using a variety of traditional and modern techniques. Mass produced replica knockoffs may not fit our forum, but there should be room for experimental archaeology that explains or perpetuates the technical construction and processes that produced our items of the past, for us and for the future, and this includes the current production of future antique artworks. Knowing how things are made, assembled and used increases rather than decreases our knowledge of the past, as well as the present.

2nd August 2018, 12:16 AM	#11
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	I agree with you David, that it is nearly always a very good idea to try to fix the precise meaning of any word before relying on that word to carry a message that is intended to be clearly understood. In fact, it has been my long-standing habit to check any word that I do not use in daily colloquial communication. Additionally, it pleases me greatly that you accessed an Oxford source. However, the dictionary meaning of any word is only the beginning of an understanding. For instance, we all know and use without hesitation the word "occupy". It is a word that was avoided in the 17th & 18th centuries, because in Shakespeare's time it could get you time in the stocks if you were heard using it in public, as it had some particularly vulgar connotations --- well, connotations deemed to be vulgar at that time, perhaps not quite so vulgar now. The way in which words are used changes constantly, just as society itself changes constantly. The only time a language does not change is when it is dead, as is the case with Latin, which in a sense can be a useful quality in a language, as it certainly prevents misunderstanding, possibly one of the reasons why a medical practitioner in past times would use Latin to convey instructions for treatment. So, the message is clear:- language that is unchanging is dead, and language being an indicator of health for a society, any society that fails to change can also be considered dead, and dead things simply disappear and sink into oblivion. Another quality of language is that meanings can and do change, dependent upon context. Although we can produce a dictionary definition of a word, indeed, in the case of "ethnography" we can produce a very large number of dictionary definitions, all of which are similar, but all of which could be debated upon the variations in their similarity. Thus, for an understanding of current usage of a word, we need to go a little beyond the limitations of a two line dictionary entry. Because of the changing nature of language, lexicographers are in a sense, historians:- they record the meaning of words in the past, not necessarily in the present. The dictionary is the place that we start when investigating correct and current understanding of a word, but it is not the place where we finish, in fact, in real life the true meaning of a two letter word could well find itself argued in front of the highest court in the land. I would like to make this post as short as I reasonably can, so rather than write a multi-page presentation on the way in which the word "ethnography" can be understood, I will provide this link:- http://www.americanethnography.com/ethnography.php In David's dictionary definition of "ethnography" we can see that this word is defined as a "scientific description". I most humbly suggest that if we were to use this definition as the basis for a decision upon whether or not a particular subject presented for discussion in the Ethnographic Arms & Armour Forum was acceptable or not, we would very probably need to disallow the vast bulk of all threads and posts to every sub-forum. Since this has not happened, and since it is clear that the dictionary meaning is known and understood, then it is very obvious that the strict dictionary meaning of "ethnology" is not at all relevant to the matters that have been, and that continue to be, discussed in this Forum. Rather, what does seem to be relevant to an understanding of the word "ethnographic" is the way in which various academics who practice and teach ethnography understand the word. Those who care to investigate university course descriptions, and text books that deal with the subject will find that my comment in Post #23 is very close to a generalised understanding of the concept of "ethnographic", across the academic world. In short, the ethnographic approach to understanding humanity, its cultures and societies is a hands-on method that amongst other things permits the examination of inter-societal exchange enabling a better focussed understanding of a society, its culture, and the people within it. The work of Thomas Hauschild as presented in this thread exemplifies this academic context, and as such should be considered as a serious contribution to an understanding of cross-cultural exchange. What we can see in Thomas' work is ethnographic examination in action. Earlier in this post I commented on the way in which societies and languages that do not change eventually die. I feel it is reasonable to think of this Forum as a sort of sub-culture within a segment of society. Kronckew has suggested that perhaps the time is ripe for some changes to take place in the sub-culture that we inhabit. I do tend to agree with him. I am certain that the last thing that any of us wish to see is the death and disappearance of this Forum. A review of Forum activity during past times, in comparison with Forum activity at present should convince anybody that we do need an increase in interest.